...is there reason he won't be permitted to proceed with a test that causes no destruction?

Quote:

... As an archaeologist Nicholas Reeves is best known for his excavations in Egypt's Valley of the Kings, where in the winter of 2000 a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey carried out by his Amarna Royal Tombs Project (ARTP) first encountered the undisturbed funerary chamber KV63 (subsequently cleared by the University of Memphis and Otto Schaden). ... (nicholasreeves.com)

The ensuing Egyptian excavations in the Valley, of course under the "direction" of Hawass (even though he was rarely on site and the work had to make others), brought entirely new insights but not a new tomb... Why probably Hawass more or less quickly lost interest and not really publicized the results. I know just a more or less popular science article in the board magazine from Egypt Air by him (Visions of the Past - New Discoveries in Ancient Thebes. - In: Horus 28.5 / 10-11. - 2010. - pp. 24 - 26).

The real publication of the results of the Egyptian mission is on-going (I hope) and was at least partially carried out by Sherif Abdel-Monaem / Afifi Rohim Afifi :

An Excavation and Geophysical Survey in the Central Valley of the Kings. - In: Current Research in Egyptology 2013. - Oxford : Oxbow Books, 2014. - pp. 1 - 10.

The Discovery of Intact Foundation Deposits in the Western Valley of the Valley of the Kings. - In: Current Research in Egyptology 2014. - Oxford : Oxbow Books, 2015. - pp. 1 - 12.

Nicholas Reeves was fully rehabilitated in August 2005 by the SCA in Egypt and absolved of any involvement in smuggling antiques, which unfortunately less waves in the press suggested as the former accusations..._________________Ägyptologie - Forum (German)

Was Hawass really that intolerant of other people's discoveries? He appears as a nice old guy in all of his books. But everytime I read something about him after he left his job as Antiquities Director it seems as if he went through a lot of trouble to ban people or lash out at everything that was not in his agenda. Or I am I picturing a wrong idea about him?

I mean... I understand how some people will strongly argue against other's opinions just to justify their own biased opinions no matter how weak on the evidence those opinions are (So I'm not family to my grandfather? Come on!).

But to not excavate in the Valley of the Kings on purpose and miss and opportunity to discover more of the history of ancient Egypt just because someone else thought of a theory first...that is a big ego right there... Do egyptologist really do that?

"Archaeologist Nicholas Reeves is set to arrive in Egypt mid-September in the hopes of confirming his theory about the location of Nefertiti’s final resting place.

Upon the invitation of Egypt’s minister of antiquities Mamdouh Eldamaty, University of Arizona archaeologist Nicholas Reeves will arrive in Egypt mid-September to prove his theory that Nefertiti’s remains lay in Tutankhamun’s tomb.

Early this week, Reeves published a theory suggesting that the west and north painted walls inside King Tutankhamun’s tomb have two secret passageways that lead to two chambers, one of them containing the remains of Nefertiti – queen of Egypt and the chief consort and wife of the monotheistic king Akhenaten, Tutankhamun's father. The remaining chamber could be another gallery for Tutankhamun.

Eldamaty told Ahram Online that after a long discussion he invited Reeves to come to Egypt and present his theory before a group of Egyptian and foreign Egyptologists, archaeological researchers, and scientists, in order to evaluate the theory and the concrete evidence.

“A debate and discussion among them will also be organized,” Eldamaty told Ahram Online.

He continued saying, “Based upon the results of the discussion, Reeves and the group will embark on an inspection tour inside Tutankhamun’s tomb in Luxor in an attempt to prove Reeves’s theory,” Eldamaty asserted.

He pointed out that the results of such inspection are to be announced in an international press conference.

“The ministry cannot release any official statement concerning such a theory until the required scientific studies are carried out,” Eldamaty added.

Eldamaty told Ahram Online that he does not believe that Nefertiti could be buried in the Valley of the Kings, but rather must have been buried somewhere in Tel Al-Amarna, the capital of Akhenaten’s kingdom."

Prof. Dietrich Wildung (at that time director of the Egyptian Museum in Berlin) was banned from excavation in Egypt by Hawass, nearly at the same time. He was one of the very, very few Egyptologist dared to, to call the media spectacle of the alleged Broadcast of the opening of the lock-stone in the hoistway of the Great Pyramid what it was : a demagogic lie and in the end just another one man show. And his wife (director of the collection in Munich) was also still the same banned, even though she had not taken a decision...

Too bad for Hawass that Wildung and his wife were not digging for years in Egypt, and this also did not planed. They have to do in the North Sudan more than enough...

evarelap wrote:

... Do egyptologist really do that?

They are also just humans after all ... Hawass was part of the system Mubarak, a dictatorship. And he was the favorite of Mrs. Mubarak, the First Lady.

Another story on Reeves' theory and his visit to Egypt with opinions from Aidan Dodson and John Darnell:

Quote:

Aidan Dodson, an Egyptologist at the University of Bristol, is skeptical of parts of Reeves' theory.

"The possibility that there are hidden chambers behind those walls is a reasonable suggestion, but it's the jump to Nefertiti (being) behind the door that I would find somehow problematic," Dodson said. "There's absolutely no example of anyone ever doing that to a tomb."

John Darnell, a professor of Egyptology at Yale University, also said it would be "nicely surprising" if Nefertiti's tomb lay in a hidden passage behind Tut's tomb. British archeologist Howard Carter discovered Tut's tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 and was "meticulous" in documenting what he found, Darnell said.

"I would be very surprised if Carter missed an additional chamber, but again, you always have to question what you think you know; and it's a very intriguing possibility," Darnell said, adding that he supported Reeves' research efforts

I need to join everyone in saying how exciting this is!!! - fingers crossed.

A couple of questions though (if there indeed proves to be a doorway(s), and if that doorway does indeed lead to an additional chamber)

The evidence of the 'Hatsepsut-like' orientation (turning) of the corridor indicating the possible original purpose of KV62 being for burial of a female king seems compelling, are there any other instances of this?

It would not be Nefertiti's tomb though would it? Was she not more probably buried in Amarna? It would be for her reburial is that right?

I keep reading about there being (at least) two instances of intrusion or tomb robbery of KV62 in antiquity, what is the evidence is for these intrusions?_________________Est modus in rebus

Aidan Dodson, an Egyptologist at the University of Bristol, is skeptical of parts of Reeves' theory.

"The possibility that there are hidden chambers behind those walls is a reasonable suggestion, but it's the jump to Nefertiti (being) behind the door that I would find somehow problematic," Dodson said. "There's absolutely no example of anyone ever doing that to a tomb."...

Now, I think there are quite comparable constructs, also in the Valley of the Kings. It occurs to me the tomb of Tauseret - KV 14. Or maybe also Hatshepsut - KV 20 and Amenhotep III - KV/WV 22. Almost certainly a king and later a further one in addition, or a queen, were buried here or the planning intended this at least thus...

Another example is of course the Royal Tomb in Amarna. There we have two separate "tombs" in addition and integrated in the tomb of the king.

... It would not be Nefertiti's tomb though would it? Was she not more probably buried in Amarna? It would be for her reburial is that right? ...

Objects from a tomb for the Great Royal Wife Nefertiti were never found. We only have two parts of a figure which were identified from Christian Loeben as belonging together ("Eine Bestattung der großen königlichen Gemahlin Nofretete in Amarna? Die Totenfigur der Nofretete". - MDAIK 42. - 1986. - pp. 99 - 107). The site of there discovery is unknown, they probably come from the antique market. In the Royal Tomb at Amarna the remains of three shattered sarcophagi were found: for Akhenaton, Maketaton and for Teje.

freeTinker wrote:

... I keep reading about there being (at least) two instances of intrusion or tomb robbery of KV62 in antiquity, what is the evidence is for these intrusions?

Of course one can not really be sure here. But the situation on the sealed / broken / resealed doors (tomb and antechamber) probably allows for such a scenario.

Aidan Dodson, an Egyptologist at the University of Bristol, is skeptical of parts of Reeves' theory.

"The possibility that there are hidden chambers behind those walls is a reasonable suggestion, but it's the jump to Nefertiti (being) behind the door that I would find somehow problematic," Dodson said. "There's absolutely no example of anyone ever doing that to a tomb."...

Now, I think there are quite comparable constructs, also in the Valley of the Kings. ...

Forgotten ... And of course there are the Royal Tombs in Tanis. If I remember correctly, there was at least in one of the tombs also built a decorated wall in a tomb chamber, thus creating a second tomb chamber for another king.

I think the three different sealing`s of the tomb are good visible on the drawing by Steve Cross, after a photo made by Howard Carter. A = The original sealing. Broken and re-sealed with B. And B broken in again and most of it re-sealed with C.

If I'm reading the drawing of KV62 by Reeves correctly, would not the safest better for the tomb be to use the annex and treasury to send the sign as from at first? No wall decorations to worry about from this side at least

The director of Factum Arte, Adam Lowe, pointed Reeves to the fact that the mold at the places designated by Reeves would more pronounced than at the remaining space... Clearly an indication of differing substrates?